THROW BACK THURSDAY- FROM THE ARCHIVES
Chris Pinto -award winning, documentary filmmaker and founder of Adullam Films, and the host of the Noise of Thunder Radio program joins Sheila to connect the dots on the Roman Empire, Islam, Ecumenism, Communism, Paganism and Secret Societies .
Article source: http://www.weekendvigilante.com/may-25-chris-pinto/
Talk about lost in translation!
Despite the long-understood promise of 72 virgins waiting in paradise for jihadi martyrs, a new translation by a Muslim scholar reveals that the actual reward is 72 raisins.
Canadian academic Irshad Manji appeared on CNN with Fareed Zakariah this Sunday. Zakariah was hosting a special called Why They Hate Us which explored hatred of the west in the Muslim world.
Manji maintained that it was dried fruit that would be enjoyed by suicide bombers:
“The word for virgin has been mistranslated. The original word that was used in the Koran was the word for raisin. Martyrs would get raisins in heaven, not virgins.”
Obviously, this is pretty amusing.
Radio talk show host Chris Plante discussed the 72 raisin reward for martyrdom this morning on WMAL in Washington DC and his analyses is, well, hilarious.
Listen to the 5 minute segment and enjoy your afternoon:
Meanwhile, out friends at Twitchy cataloged some pretty great responses on Twitter:
— Kevin R. Spaulding (@KKevdogg) May 24, 2016
72 raisins? Hate to be an ISIS recruiter today. https://t.co/dqwyQjy3vA
— Mike Maden (@MikeMadenAuthor) May 23, 2016
A scholar claims the Koran was incorrectly translated. It’s 72 RAISINS, not 72 virgins.
[scrapes toast with knife]
WHERE IS YOUR ALLAH NOW
— Brosephine Wires (@JoParkerBear) May 24, 2016
Jazz hit this story earlier but I want to add a few thoughts. Remember the big push after 2012 to compress the primary schedule and reduce the number of debates, on the theory that that would help a well-financed establishment candidate win by denying an outsider insurgent like Ron Paul the time and opportunity needed to gain traction?
How’d that work out this year?
Only one thing is certain. Whatever they end up doing, it’ll backfire spectacularly.
In one possibility that members of the Republican National Committee have floated, the early voting states, also known as “carve-out states,” would retain their special status. But to bring more states into the process earlier, each would be paired with a nearby state that would vote on the same day. So Iowa would still hold the first contest in 2020, but on the same day as Minnesota. New Hampshire would vote next, but on the same day as Massachusetts. And the same-day pairings would change: In 2024, Iowa would be twinned with South Dakota, and New Hampshire with Maine…
Other changes under consideration include ones that would abolish the early state system as it now exists and replace it with a rotating set of states that would vote together based on a host of shared factors like population size and geography…
One of the most fraught discussions taking place inside the party is whether to restrict voting in presidential primaries and caucuses to registered Republicans. The impetus is the impending nomination of Mr. Trump, a former Democrat who holds some views that are far out of line with mainstream party orthodoxy…
“I think that’s probably the biggest discussion of all,” said Ron Kaufman, the Republican national committeeman from Massachusetts and a longtime party leader.
If any of the first four end up being culled it’ll probably be Nevada, which, being Nevada, is a shady mess. I don’t understand the logic, though, of pairing the other early states with sister states. I understand it in broad terms — the idea is to reduce any single state’s capacity to pick the nominee with a hugely influential early win (although that hasn’t happened for Iowa in a lo-o-ong time) — but if the point is to diversify, why not diversify geographically? Let Iowa, the midwestern bastion, and New Hampshire, the northeastern one, vote on the same day. Schedule a western Mormon red-state stronghold like Utah alongside the southern evangelical red-state stronghold of South Carolina. For added fun, move Ohio up to the same date that Florida votes, a swing-state twofer. (Er, actually, they voted on the same date this year, didn’t they? Still, move ’em up!) Any candidate who jumps out to a formidable early lead with a set-up like that will have earned it by demonstrating broad appeal to a lot of different Republican demographics. What’s to be gained by slating, say, Massachusetts on the same day as New Hampshire, allowing a candidate with niche appeal to northeastern GOPers to double his fun by winning two culturally similar states instead of one?
As for the eternal “open or closed primaries?” question, all anti-Trumpers are closed-primary fans after this year’s nightmare. But being anti-Trump isn’t an excuse to be anti-fact, and the facts (as best as anyone can tell right now) are that Trump didn’t win because of open primaries. Politico looked at that last week and discovered that the “new voters” Trump has brought into the party have … actually been in the party all along. They weren’t independents and Democrats crossing over in open primaries to vote for the “radical moderate,” they were longtime registered Republicans who’d typically skipped voting in the primaries but turned out this year for Trump. Data collected by Marco Rubio’s campaign and shared with Yahoo News supported that conclusion. If you could go back in time and close all of the primaries this year, you might very well have had the same outcome in terms of Trump being nominated. It’s a comforting and convenient fiction, I think, to go on believing that the Republican Party remains composed mostly of rock-ribbed conservatives and that Trump sailed through thanks only to a, er, “foreign” invasion. It may be the case that the Republican base, the sort of people who typically vote in primaries every four years, is largely conservative (or it may not, given his dominance in the south) but the entirety of the Republican Party obviously is not. Once the rest of the party, the people who usually tune out until the general election, finally had a candidate in Trump who spoke to their concerns more effectively than doctrinaire conservatives like Ted Cruz did, they showed up. Opening or closing the primaries isn’t going to solve that problem for conservative true believers, although closed primaries obviously make it easier for them.
If you’re wondering which way the party should tilt on this, though, here’s an ominous warning from Sean Trende that’s stayed with me since I first saw it a few weeks ago. Anti-Trump conservatives who think things can’t get worse forgot the first rule of pessimism: It can always get worse.
If there’s cause for concern, whether from a National Front-type Republican Party or a Syriza-style Democratic one (and to be clear, given the nature of our political system, both parties will likely remain more moderate than their European counterparts), it probably comes in 2020. Given the length of the business cycle, the probability of a recession during the next four years is extremely high, and many people have not recovered from the last one. The results of that could be catastrophic, depending on the severity of the downturn, and could convince more voters to try something radically different. A Supreme Court with a swing vote justice who is no longer a culturally cosmopolitan Republican who is reluctant, but willing, to utilize his power to push social change could continue the alienation of traditionalists from mainstream dialogue.
Odds are very good that the electorate will be more, not less, radicalized in four years than it is now, on both sides. If you’re looking to blunt that radicalization in the primaries, what’s your best bet? Letting independents in as a moderating influence on an increasingly nationalist Republican base? Or keeping the “radical center” out and letting a more dogmatically conservative Republican base have more influence over picking the nominee? It all depends on which way you think indies and GOPers are heading.
Tags: GOP, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, pair, primaries, republican, rnc, romney, South Carolina, trump
There were more protests Wednesday outside a Donald Trump rally in Anaheim, California. Fox News reported that a handful of protesters wearing masks were throwing rocks, some as large as grapefruit, at a line of police on horseback. This clip shows a few anti-Trump supporters screaming and threatening a handful of Trump supporters. This clip basically boils down to one angry guy (anti-Trump) screaming that another guy (flag headband) that he’s a disgrace. Eventually the other guy must have said something like ‘No, you are’ which makes the first guy even angrier. But there seem to be as many cameras here as protesters (some NSFW language here):
AFP has video of anti-Trump protesters who appear to be arguing with a couple of street preachers. There are a few Nazi signs but, overall, I’d categorize the protester energy level of this clip as Jeb-Bush-after-a-hearty-meal.
Here’s more of the street preacher guy talking about deportation with a young woman who says she’s not leaving:
“God believes in having borders too.”
— Fusion (@Fusion) May 25, 2016
Next up is an Associated Press clip which captures one of the key moments of this protest…the arrest of a guy in a scary clown mask. It’s not clear what the guy had done but it is clear that clowns are creepy:
A photo of the arrest:
— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) May 26, 2016
CNN captured a fist fight breaking out on the street but it’s impossible to tell from the helicopter shot who is fighting (or why):
— CNN (@CNN) May 25, 2016
Finally, Fox News went live to the scene during The Five but seems to have just missed most of the action. The reporter on scene describes a handful of protesters with covered faces throwing rocks at police and kicking passing cars but we don’t actually see any of that. This clip does show police chasing (and losing) one protester and the line or horseback mounted police advancing down the street several times:
Follow Us On
Follow Us On
Watch Us On
Powerful Minister Carla Butaud from Texas joins Sheila for a powerful teaching on the far reaching effects of Pornography
Article source: http://www.weekendvigilante.com/may-24-carla-butaud/
Feels like a teaser trailer for a bigger production, which is what it is. I can imagine it playing before each of Trump’s rallies, to whet the crowd’s appetite before he launches into a 20-minute shpiel about “Rapist Bill” — who is, of course, a longtime friendly acquaintance of Trump’s and was an invited guest to Trump’s own wedding. Ostensibly it’s aimed at women voters (and younger adults, who may not remember how lurid the Clinton scandals were or why the pic here is of Bill smoking a cigar) but I think the real audience is conservatives. The surest way to further thin the ranks of #NeverTrumpers on the right is to feed them a diet of anti-Clinton bile. Trump and his new friends in the GOP leadership are eager to unify the party behind him before the convention; reminding them that the Clintons are, in fact, dirtbags is the quickest route to doing so. Trump is an “id” politician. He can’t do much to appeal to the conservative id on policy but picking fights with their enemies will do the trick. Wait until he starts in on Obama.
In fact, I think Trump hitting Bill Clinton this hard this early will force Bill to take a lower-profile role on the stump this fall, inevitably to be replaced by Obama as lead surrogate instead. That’ll help the GOP coalesce but it’ll probably help Democrats coalesce too since it’ll signal to O’s winning coalitions in 2008 and 2012 that this election is less about the “Clinton legacy” than the Obama legacy. He may have to drag her over the finish line. Just watch the second clip below, which operates as her counterpunch to the Trump ad today. Hoo boy. You can’t be the lead establishmentarian in your party and be this bad at retail politics and expect to win. Can you? Jeb couldn’t.
Either way, I’ve said before and I’ll say again that I think this is the right strategy for Trump. A bumper-sticker policy proposal here, a blithe reassurance about making America great again there, and then attack, attack, attack in terms as harshly personal as possible. Keep Billary constantly on defense and smother their message, insofar as they have any message beyond “Trump is dangerous” and it’s time for a Clinton restoration.
Hillary Clinton has decided not to participate in a debate with Bernie Sanders prior to the California primary. As recently as Sunday Clinton was asked if she would participate in the debate which Fox News had offered to host. Appearing on Meet the Press, Clinton said she would consider it. The Washington Post reports it has been considered and dropped:
In a statement, Clinton’s communications director Jennifer Palmieri confirmed that they do not intend to participate. Instead, Palmieri indicated that Clinton would prefer to instead continue her pivot to the general election fight against Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee.
“We have declined Fox News’ invitation to participate in a debate in California,” Palmieri said. “As we have said previously, we plan to compete hard in the remaining primary states, particularly California, while turning our attention to the threat a Donald Trump presidency poses.”
Bernie Sanders has said he wants to try to win the California primary so he can arrive at the Democratic convention with maximum political power. That has made some Democrats nervous about what kind of convention Democrats might be facing this summer. Last week Senator Dianne Feinstein suggested it could be a return to the “68 convention” during which there were fights on the convention floor and riots outside.
Clinton has been turning her attention away from Sanders saying twice in the past week that she will be the party’s nominee. While Clinton has not gone as far as calling on Sanders to drop out of the race she has made clear her expectations for him uniting the party once he does decide to get out. “I worked really hard to make the case, as I’m sure Senator Sanders will, that whatever differences we might have, they pale in comparison to the presumptive nominee of the Republican party,” Clinton said in an interview with CNN’s Chris Cuomo last week.
One more debate, even a solid performance, may not have been enough to give Sanders a win anyway. The Real Clear Politics average of polls currently has Clinton winning the primary by 9.7 points.
We could talk about “Fear the Walking Dead” instead, but I get the sense that I’m the only one still watching, especially now that “Game of Thrones” is back on the air. Too bad. FTWD is more interesting than its parent, although thinner on scares. (Maybe fatally so.) We could talk about the Trump scandal du jour, an alleged “pattern of business dealings with mob figures,” but unity! requires that we politely overlook such things now that he’s the anointed leader of Real America. Besides, you can’t prove anything and everyone does it anyway and those two points aren’t at all contradictory.
So here’s a question as a change of pace: Can it be that we have yet to see a pizza whose crust is made entirely out of meat? Has that happened already? It sounds unspeakably gross but someone must have attempted it at some point as part of the chain-restaurant trend towards carb-conscious Frankenfood. KFC gave us the Double Down, now Taco Bell is giving us this. It’s a matter of time before you turn on the TV to find Papa John and Peyton Manning digging into a 16″ pie made entirely of cocktail franks. It’s a contradiction in terms, of course: Cutting carbs is about losing weight and improving your health whereas opting for the “healthy” breadless sandwich that’s held together by greasy fried chicken is like ordering a Diet Coke to wash down your hot-fudge sundae.
Taco Bell has found in the test that the vegetables somehow manage to give the meaty, deep-fried chalupa a “health halo” in the eyes of consumers. “We were getting feedback like, ‘It’s so healthy. It’s so fresh,’” said Garcia. “That really surprised us because it’s fried chicken.”
You want to know how you end up with Trump vs. Clinton as the final two in a nation of 300 million people? That’s how.
This is interesting, though. Apparently KFC did suffer a consumer backlash over the Double Down — but not because it was unhealthy, or because the idea of using meat as a vehicle for less voluptuous food is a sin against God and man:
The sandwich, which stuck cheese and bacon between two fried chicken fillets, went viral after it was announced on April Fool’s Day. While the sandwich gained notoriety, however, it also may have hurt long-term customer perception of KFC.
“People look at the Double Down and what do they think? Frankenfood, right?” KFC CMO Kevin Hochman told Business Insider. “The sad thing is that somebody in the back of the house was hand breading fillets and making the Double Down.”
Turns out the Double Down lacked the down-home old-fashioned authenticity that comes from fried chicken stored under a warming lamp and served in a bucket. This is why I don’t rule out two terms for President Trump.
You’ll be pleased to know that after the election, once I’ve recovered from my nervous breakdown and moved on to a new career, I plan to open a gastropub that serves nothing but Frankenfood. Bratwursts dipped in a sauce of pureed hamburger, pizza-stuffed hot dogs served on top of hot-dog-stuffed pizza, and a special thing I’m working on in which tacos and macaroni-and-cheese are fused at a molecular level like Brundlefly. It’ll be yuge, that I can tell you. My menu will be so full of win, you’ll be vomiting into buckets placed table-side from all the winning. Exit question: Isn’t this just a chicken cutlet with some condiments rolled up into a U-shape? How is that Frankenfood, properly speaking?
Some of the pieces of that New York Times profile of Ben Rhodes are still falling into place. You may recall that one of the groups mentioned in that story as being helpful to the creation of a White House “echo chamber” was the Ploughshares Fund. Friday the Associated Press revealed the Ploughshares Fund made a $100,000 donation to National Public Radio last year for coverage of the Iran deal. The Associated Press reports:
A group the White House recently identified as a key surrogate in selling the Iran nuclear deal gave National Public Radio $100,000 last year to help it report on the pact and related issues, according to the group’s annual report. It also funded reporters and partnerships with other news outlets…
The Ploughshares grant to NPR supported “national security reporting that emphasizes the themes of U.S. nuclear weapons policy and budgets, Iran’s nuclear program, international nuclear security topics and U.S. policy toward nuclear security,” according to Ploughshares’ 2015 annual report, recently published online.
[…]”It’s a valued partnership, without any conditions from Ploughshares on our specific reporting, beyond the broad issues of national and nuclear security, nuclear policy, and nonproliferation,” NPR said in an emailed statement. “As with all support received, we have a rigorous editorial firewall process in place to ensure our coverage is independent and is not influenced by funders or special interests.”
There are no conditions on the money and yet, guess who NPR turned to when reporting on the Iran deal? If you guessed Ploughshares’ president, Joseph Cirincione, you are correct. He appeared on the network twice as the deal was being reached last March. The first story was titled “Nuclear Experts Remain Optimistic About Iranian Negotiations.” Cirincione speaks not about nuclear weapons but about U.S. partisan politics:
KELEMEN: Kimball says some in Congress want a legitimate oversight role to ensure that the deal is strict enough and sanctions aren’t eased to quickly. Some just want to be spoilers, and that worries Joe Cirincione, president of the Ploughshares Fund, which works to reduce nuclear weapons.
JOE CIRINCIONE: President Obama’s political opponents try to block everything he does. But I think the center of the American security establishment is solidly behind the deal as it’s been outlined.
KELEMEN: And he thinks it’s close.
CIRINCIONE: It looks like all sides have agreed to buy the house, and we’re just negotiating the closing costs.
For some reason, NPR forgot to inform listeners that Cirincione was the head of a group that was funding the very report to which they were listening. The story now has an update at the bottom which reads as follows:
Oops! The second time Cirincione appeared on the network was about a week later. He was the sole guest on a segment of Morning Edition titled “Negotiations Over Iran’s Nuclear Program Come Down To The Wire.” Once again, Cirincione was not asked about details of the nuclear deal but spoke about geopolitics and our distrust for Iran. Here’s a sample:
INSKEEP: So now we have the United States on the edge of reaching this nuclear deal with Iran and the question is, can the United States, to some extent, trust Iran, given this great gulf of distrust? What’s the answer to that, if you favor an agreement?
CIRINCIONE: This is not about trust. This is about reaching an agreement. It was Henry Kissinger who said that some people see negotiations as weakness. I see them, he said, as a tool for establishing our moral and psychological edge. It’s a device for gaining strategic advantage. That’s the way you have to look at these talks. What do we get out of it? These talks are not going to solve all the problems we have with Iran. They are not going to solve all the problems in the Middle East. But they may solve the most dangerous. This negotiation could stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, and that is good enough.
At least NPR managed to include a disclaimer at the end of this story:
INSKEEP: He’s president of the Ploughshares Fund. And just a note of full disclosure here, the Ploughshares Fund is a supporter of NPR’s coverage of nonproliferation and national security.
Note that both of the NPR disclaimers, the one done last year and the one added last night, are more generic than the information in the Ploughshares Fund annual report (see above). Ploughshares has put out a response to the AP story which reads in part:
It is common practice for foundations to fund media coverage of under-reported stories and perspectives. For some, this might be global health, poverty or the impact of conflict on civilians. For Ploughshares Fund, this means bringing much-needed attention to the dangers of nuclear weapons. Our support of independent media such as NPR and PRI does not influence the editorial content of their coverage in any way, nor would we want it to.
Again, Cirincione appeared on NPR twice without so much as a dissenting voice in sight. Finally, I’ll mention once again that I had my own confrontation with Josheph Cirincione during this debate when I pointed out a claim he had made in print was wrong and misleading. He agreed I had a point, i.e. he was wrong on the facts, but never corrected his story. In my experience, this part of the White House echo-chamber wasn’t as concerned with getting its facts right as it was with supporting the White House deal with Iran.
Just how biased are New York Democrats against the energy industry? You didn’t need much further proof after the last few years, when the state decided to declare what essentially amounts to a permanent moratorium on fracking. (The landowners who went broke while they watched their neighbors across the border to the south in Pennsylvania prospering were simply thrilled.) But simply stopping drilling on their own turf wasn’t enough. When a group of energy companies brought forth a proposal to build the new Constitution Pipeline for natural gas transportation, environmentalists were quick to protest and enlist Empire State politicians on their side.
The pipeline is designed to bring natural gas from Pennsylvania a relatively short distance over the border into upstate New York and link to existing natural gas pipelines. The energy is plentiful and local, offering continued low energy prices and reliability while promising numerous construction jobs along the route. Obviously this is something which must be stopped at all costs if you’re a Democrat, so the state recently denied permits for the pipeline to cross various steams along the route in the name of protecting the water supply or something.
Landowners along the route are still anticipating the construction of the project, however, and will profit from having the pipeline traverse their property. Some of them have begun paving the way by clearing out trees (which they can also sell) and other vegetation, getting the pipeline route ready for faster completion. This has apparently infuriated the state’s Attorney General, Eric Schneiderman, who has issued a stern warning to… the pipeline owners. (Binghamton Press Sun Bulletin)
But New York’s attorney general, in a 43-page filing with federal regulators, accuses the pipeline company of jumping the gun on construction, clearing wide swaths before receiving necessary approvals from New York state.
“Evidence provides a reasonable basis to conclude Constitution expressly or tacitly authorized, encouraged and/or condoned the tree and vegetation cutting,” Schneiderman’s complaint states.
“Constitution has a responsibility to ensure that no unapproved activities occur in the right-of-way — regardless of whose idea it was,” said Nick Benson, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office, in an email. “This means that even if there were landowners who were cutting and taking other construction activity in the right of way on their own volition, if Constitution had knowledge of these activities, the company had a legal responsibility to take action to stop it.”
This is truly phenomenal. After investigating with local and county administrators, the AG’s office has already learned that Constitution didn’t clear the trees. They didn’t pay anyone else to clear the trees. They didn’t ask that the trees be cleared. The locals decided to make some of the money they can’t earn through leasing their land for fracking by selling some timber and, at the same time, hopefully speed up the pipeline construction process so they can make a few bucks that way as well. In fact, everyone outside of the AG’s office and environmental groups seems to realize that cutting the trees on their own now makes the most sense.
Why cut prematurely? To preserve the quality of felled trees so they can be used as lumber.
Crews employed by pipeline sponsors “are not the most skilled cutters,” said Dennis Valente, Town of Davenport supervisor. “There’s a difference between a stick of firewood and veneer wood.”
Early cutting allows landowners to get top dollar from their trees rather than wait for compensation, which could be far less, from Constitution’s hired contractors. Landowners say they are well within their rights to harvest timber on their own parcels without interference from Schneiderman.
And yet the Attorney General is leveling charges at the pipeline company over it. It was, in his mind, the responsibility of the pipeline owners to anticipate that some landowners might start cutting trees and stop them.
Welcome to New York. In an effort to score points with environmentalists and smooth his own path to higher office, the Attorney General has gone fully off the deep end.
Michelle Obama finally scored that major victory she was looking for in terms of monitoring what everyone eats last week. As Politico reported, the First Lady was instrumental in driving through a new rule which will require food producers to add yet another layer of information on product nutrition labels, this time targeting how much sugar they add to their products and how much will probably kill you.
First lady Michelle Obama Friday unveiled the country’s first update to nutrition labels in more than two decades — a move that helps cement her campaign to encourage Americans to eat healthier.
The new Nutrition Facts labels, which will take effect in two years and appear on billions of food packages, for the first time require food companies to list how much sugar they add to their products and suggest a limit for how much added sugar people should consume — two changes vehemently opposed by many food companies.
The food companies are up in arms for a couple of reasons. First of all, yet another redesign of all their packaging isn’t going to be cheap. On top of that, even though we’re not talking about a known carcinogen or actual toxic substance here, they’re going to need to scare their customers into buying less of their products the same as if they were selling tobacco. Besides that, they’re probably sure that this yet more government window dressing which makes it look like they’re doing something without really having much of an impact on the “problem” they’re trying to solve. That last point was highlighted in this report from Newsweek where they conclude that the people most in need of dietary advice are the least likely to be affected by the new labeling.
The biggest overhaul of U.S. food nutrition labels in more than two decades is likely to help improve the diets of the most health-conscious consumers, but others may need more convincing.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Friday announced new Nutrition Facts packaged food label rules that include disclosure of how much sugar is added to thousands of processed foods ranging from soda to spaghetti sauce…
Curbing excess sugar consumption is key to whittling waist lines in the United States, where more than one-third of adults are obese, and to reducing the prevalence of heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer.
So expensive (to implement) nutrition labels aren’t going to reach your target audience? Hmm…. that’s a puzzler to be sure. Now, if I were a massive government bureaucracy and had to find some other way modify the public’s consumption behavior, how might I go about it? Oh, wait… they’ve already thought of it before I could even bring up the suggestion. (Emphasis added)
Public health advocates welcomed the new rules but said some of the groups most at risk for obesity and diet-related illness may not change habits without other measures to discourage sugar consumption, such as taxes on sugar and food advertising warning labels.
Of course! Taxes and frightening, dire warning labels like on cigarettes. The taxes are a no brainer of course. If you don’t want people doing something, pass a sin tax on the activity in question. It’s straight out of the liberal playbook on page one. Don’t want people smoking? Put a 700% tax on cigarettes rather than banning them. Don’t like guns? Try passing a massive tax on ammunition. It works for almost anything, really.
And the warning labels clearly need to be modeled after the ones on a pack of Marboros. That should be a great fit for the cereal boxes that toddlers of lower income families adore.
This is yet another fabulous plan from the nanny state. People who want sugar will generally eat sweet things. If you’re the type who fixates on product nutrition labels, you’re probably already concerned about your health and are eating pretty well anyway. The people who could really use some dietary improvements aren’t calculating the data on the label. It’s similar to when they decided to make companies include “serving size” warnings on everything. Did you know the serving size of Girl Scout cookies is three cookies? I’ve got news for Michelle Obama… across most of the country the serving size on those bad boys remains one sleeve. (If you’re lucky.)
But now that the decision has been made, I assume this will be yet another legacy of hope and change which the Obama family will leave in their wake. Well done, guys. We should be a nation of slender, athletic marvels by the summer.
January 15 -17: Reno Nevada appearance livingwaterssparkschurch.org I will be speaking Friday night and then two sessions on Saturday followed by a Q A. Sunday morning on Prophecy!
February 5: The Anchor – www.theanchoroceanside.com
February 19 – 22: Beit Tehila Congregation Topraise.net
March 18-20: Dallas Prophecy Watchmen Conference! http://www.hearthewatchmen.com
Remember to sign up for live streaming of Hear the Watchmen visit http://www.hearthewatchmen.com/#!live-stream-hear-the-watchmen/wdudm
April 1-3: Burnsville North Carolina
April 27 – 30 – Supernatural Crossroads Conference. https://pxd.us/?p=1034
July 15-17 – Prophecy Watchers Conference.
We need your help! Please send me your favorite website address so I can contact them and see about putting a banner ad on their page to advertise the release of Watchers 10.
We’re trying to get the word out about Watchers 10 and the NET is the place to do it.
Please don’t send Drudge or CNN or Brietbart. I’m looking for sites that we can afford! LOL!
If we use your site as a token of our appreciation we’ll send you Watchers 10, plus my new book Nephilim Hybrids FREE!
Send the links to email@example.com Heading: Web-site
$20.00 + sh
*Additional shipping fee on International shipping may apply
It’s finally here! The Watchers 10 – Pre-sale! I know some of you think I’m hyping this but honestly what we have to show in this film is off the hook. I’m having trouble getting my head around some of it. All I can say is, We’re on the Trail!
Our Monthly news magazine PPS is packed with articles and commentary from some of the best authors today. Cris Putnam, Richard Shaw, Tony Kail, Fritz Zimmerman, Pastor Caspar McCloud are regular contributors. The PPS News Magazine comes as a PDF file in your email! Don’t miss out on this great offer.
We’re also asking those of you who believe in what Richard Shaw and I are doing with this ongoing Watchers film series to contribute to the productions cost. The cost of the Watchers films come out of our pockets, we’re not the History Channel! LOL! Thanks for considering it and helping out.
Watchman Michael Hoggard is the pastor of Bethel Church in Missouri. He is the founder and director of Prophetic Research Ministry, has spent many years researching the Scriptures and has extensive knowledge on Freemasonry and the Occult. He joins Sheila to weigh in on The Dark Side of Hebrew Roots.
Article source: http://www.weekendvigilante.com/may-19-pastor-mike-hoggard/
Hillary Clinton gave an interview today in which she made an unusually blunt statement about the nomination. When CNN’s Chris Cuomo began a question with the phrase, “if you’re the nominee for your party” Clinton interrupted him. “I will be the nominee for my party, Chris,” Clinton said adding, “That is already done, in effect.”
While the blunt statement that the race is over made headlines, what Clinton said next sounded like a very thinly-veiled message to the Sanders camp. In an extended comparison between her 2008 race and where Bernie Sanders is right now, Clinton said, “I am confident that just as I did with Senator Obama, where I said ‘you know what, it was really close,’ much closer than it is between me and Senator Sanders right now.” “Votes wise,” Cuomo clarified. “Yeah, vote wise and delegate wise…in fact, it depends on how you evaluate it I had more popular vote but I had fewer delegates,” Clinton continued.
“So, when I came out and withdrew and endorsed Senator Obama, about 40 percent, according to polls, about 40 percent of my supporters said they would never support him. So I worked really hard to make the case, as I’m sure Senator Sanders will, that whatever differences we might have, they pale in comparison to the presumptive nominee of the Republican party.”
This is not a very subtle hint about what Clinton expects Sanders to do fairly soon. But it seems she is going to be disappointed. Sanders has not appreciated the pressure to knuckle-under from his adopted party. In fact, he is said to be determined to win California so that he can roll into the national convention with “maximum political power.” No doubt that power is going to expect something from the party in return for working to hand his supporters over to Clinton. One thing he may want is some change to the party’s superdelegate system which made it impossible for his upstart candidacy to beat Clinton.
The real question is whether or not Clinton and the rest of the party, already obviously irritated with Sanders, are prepared to meet his demands or will risk an explosive confrontation at the convention.
Obamacare has been disastrous for health insurers, like UnitedHealth Group, billions have been wasted on state exchanges, which are hanging by a thread, and the law’s enrollment projections (calculated by the CBO three years ago) were off by 24 million for 2016. Now, more Americans are opting to pay the penalty and remain uninsured because it makes more sense for their finances. No wonder why this law is unpopular. Oh, and did I mention that premiums are projected to rise (again) this year. Given the expensive nature of the Obamacare market, some insurers are dropping like flies, giving Americans in some rural areas just one choice when it comes to their health care. Of course, some folks are worried about monopoly dynamics (via WSJ):
Health-insurance customers in a growing number of mostly rural regions will have just one insurer’s plans to choose from on the Affordable Care Act’s exchanges next year, as some companies pull out of unprofitable markets.
The entire states of Alaska and Alabama are expected to have only one insurer on the health law’s signature online marketplaces next year, according to state regulators. The same is expected to be true in parts of several other states, including Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arizona and Oklahoma, state regulators said.
So far, more than 650 counties appear on track to have just one insurer on the exchanges in 2017, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, which is tracking withdrawals as they become public. That would be up from 225 in 2016, when the state of Wyoming, among other areas, already had just one ACA marketplace competitor. Of the counties in jeopardy of having only a single exchange insurer next year, 70% have populations that are mostly rural, said Cynthia Cox, a researcher at the foundation.
Kori Allen, a bookkeeper in Kodiak, Alaska, this year has an exchange plan from Moda Health Plan Inc., which will pull out of the state’s ACA marketplace next year. Ms. Allen, 36 years old, who receives a federal subsidy that helps with her premiums, worries about what will happen when there is only one insurer, Premera Blue Cross, offering exchange products: “It’s going to be a monopoly, basically; ‘here’s the price, take it or leave it.’”
…the patchwork of coverage reflects continued instability in the individual insurance market, as companies shift their geographic footprints to avoid areas that have turned out to generate steep losses, and focus on places where they believe they can get their ACA business into the black.
UnitedHealth Group Inc. said last month it would leave all but a handful of the 34 states where it sold exchange plans this year amid losses; Humana Inc. is also pulling out of some areas. Others are sticking around: Anthem Inc. has said it would continue selling exchange plans in its current 14 states. Aetna Inc. will remain in its 15 states and has said it may enter more, and Cigna Corp. plans to extend beyond the seven states where it currently sells exchange plans.
How expensive is the ACA market? In North Carolina, Blue Cross and Blue Shield is the only insurer under Obamacare that offers health insurance to all of the states 100 counties. In 2014, CEO Brad Wilson said [emphasis mine]:
“In year one, five percent of our ACA customers consumed $830 million in health care costs. That’s how much money went out of our door to pay for the heath care for the sickest five percent of the ACA population that we had; we collected $75 million in premiums–between what they could contribute and the government subsidy. Any way you cut it that’s an unsustainable business model.”
Moreover, Ali Meyer of the Washington Free Beacon reported that there’s been a 27 percent decrease in participation among health insurers in the exchanges since the law went into effect.
Still, liberals are going to tout how Obamacare has given us a record low rate of uninsured Americans, but costs have not gone down. That was the main selling point for Obamacare in 2009-10. This could be due to the fact that pro-Obamacare proponents overlook the fact that most newly insured persons have been tossed onto the Medicaid rolls (via Weekly Standard/Hudson Institute):
Obamacare’s proponents say the overhaul has greatly increased the number of people with health insurance coverage (albeit by less than three-quarters as much as it was supposed to have done by this time). What they tend to omit is the fact that most of the “newly insured”—about 60 percent—have merely been dumped into Medicaid. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Obamacare has added only 8 million people—just 2.5 percent of the U.S. population—to the private insurance rolls.
And at what cost? Well, the CBO says that the Obamacare subsidies for private insurance will cost $43 billion this year alone. That’s an average of $5,375 per person for those who have been added to the private insurance rolls—or $21,500 per family of four. Meanwhile, the typical 36-year-old (or younger) who makes $36,000 a year (or more) gets $0 under Obamacare. Such everyday Americans instead get to help finance that $5,375-per-person cost for those who get private insurance under Obamacare, while facing far higher premiums and significantly narrower doctor networks themselves.
As for those who Obamacare has newly enrolled in Medicaid, they are costing taxpayers even more—an average of $5,692 per person for this year alone ($74 billion divided by 13 million new enrollees).
The overwhelming majority of Americans had health insurance, through private plans, but mostly through their employers. This was never a major problem. And most of those who had insurance prior to Obamacare axing them from it liked their plans. Now, it’s cheaper to just pay the penalty and remain uninsured.
Editor’s Note: This was cross-posted from Townhall.com.
Not as dramatic as yesterday’s Fox News poll which showed Trump leading Clinton by 3 points, but the new CBS News/New York Times poll finds movement in the same direction. The new poll out Thursday afternoon shows Clinton with a 6 point lead over Trump. The same poll showed Clinton with a 10 point lead a month ago.
Respondents from both parties seem to be coalescing around the presumptive nominees. CBS News reports:
Seventy-one percent of Republican voters who did not support Trump in the primaries would still vote for him against Clinton. On the Democratic side, 72 percent of Sanders supporters would vote for Clinton against Donald Trump.
However the poll also points to less satisfaction with the nominee on the Democratic side:
Most Republicans (55 percent) are satisfied, while most Democrats (52 percent) and independents (60 percent) are not. Eight in 10 Sanders supporters would like other choices.
So Sanders supporters appear strongly dissatisfied with Clinton as the nominee, but it’s Republican respondents who are more likely to say their party is divided and in need of unity:
Republicans see their party as in need of unification. Eighty-four percent of Republicans say their party is divided now, and while most are hopeful about the future of the Republican Party, four in 10 are discouraged…
In contrast, 50 percent of Democratic voters say their party is united (although 48 percent say it’s not).
The demographic break down is what we’re used to seeing in these polls. Clinton wins with minorities and women (by 17 points) while Trump wins with whites and men (by 5 points). Finally, Bernie Sanders once again does better in the overall match-up than Hillary Clinton. She leads Trump by just 6 points but Sanders leads by 13 points.
Follow Us On
Follow Us On
Watch Us On
Article source: http://www.weekendvigilante.com/may-18-dr-michael-lake/
Chinese technology giant Huawei is preparing for a world where people live forever, dead relatives linger on in computers and robots try to kill humans. Read Full Here